Utilitarianism Theory: Case Study

In this scenario, Jim’s morally thinking does follow the act utilitarianism theory. Jim weighs his options, of whom he should consider for the job. Jim is using the consequentialism formula to try and figure out what will be the best solution that he can live with morally. But does Jim practice all of the theories that go along with act utilitarianism? Just like in the case Jim believes that he should be acting impartially. Therefore, he is dismissing one of the most important part of the act utilitarian theory. Let’s first examine the formula for consequentialism and see if Jim has followed all of the steps.

To know if Jim is following his moral beliefs, then we have to look at his decision process. According to Shafer-Landau, “Thus, to know whether an action is morally required, we need to do four things: (1) add up all of the benefits it produces, (2) add up all the harm it causes, (3) determine the balance, and (4) see whether the balance is greater than that of any other available action,” ( p 125). First what are the benefits of Jim’s decision? One benefit is

According to Shafer-Landau, “Utilitarianism is a doctrine of impartiality, and this is one of its great strengths. It tells us that the welfare of each person is equally morally important,” (p 119). With that being said Jim did not use his impartiality when it came to hiring his friend. Following the impartiality theory, he should have given the job to the more qualified candidate. According to Shafer-Landau, “The moral point of view is nothing less than an impartial concern for everyone whose well-being may be affected by our actions,” (p 120). Many different things can happen due to Jim’s impartiality. A good example is how does Jim doesn’t know that if the guy didn’t get the job, that he would lose his house. So in a sense the actions of Jim has a negative effect on the